Nodin wrote: » To me it appears he objects to the church using its powers as an institution to block same sex marriage, else why bother with "the Church can oppose holding same-sex ceremonies (as archaic as such a view is)".
PDN wrote: » I have asked for examples of where anyone is dictating what others can or cannot do. All that have been cited are instances of religious leaders airing their opinion.
PDN wrote: » Because that, by any plain understanding of the English language, refers to the Church refusing to hold same-sex marriages in their churches. Once again, my position is that the Pope or any other religious leader has an equal right to Barack Obama, Eammon Gilmore or George Clooney when it comes to voicing their opinion on a proposed change in legislation. To claim that the non-religious should hasve such a right, but that the religious should not, is gross hypocrisy from anyone who claims to advocate tolerance.
People can voice their opinions all they like - it's when they try to actively obstruct civil rights is when it becomes a problem.
In the same respect - the KKK can tell it's members not the marry black women all they want, but they have absolutely no right whatsoever to try dictate to the rest of the population what race to marry. There is zero different between the two scenarios.
Zombrex wrote: » That isn't his argument. I don't agree with his argument, but as you have put it it is isn't his argument. dlofnep is saying that churches should not use their power to influence legislation. Their power extends far beyond making public announcements, as has been demonstrated in Ireland over the years when the Catholic Church had massive influence over politics through various manners of manipulate and control. For example, a favorite tactic of Catholic priests to maintain control on their "flock" is to punish those who act against their teachings by publicly humiliating them through the refusal to grant holy communion. Now again, let me be clear I don't agree with dlofnep. I think a private organization such as a religious church can act how it likes with regard to its membership and its rules of membership and if people are stupid to be influenced into keeping quite by this then maybe they deserve to be humiliated. But it is incorrect to frame his objection in terms of free speech as if that is the only outlet the various religious groups have to express objection to those who disagree with them. It significantly down plays the power religious organisations have over their members through the manipulation of their reputation and standing in the wider society.
dlofnep is saying that churches should not use their power to influence legislation. Their power extends far beyond making public announcements, as has been demonstrated in Ireland over the years when the Catholic Church had massive influence over politics through various manners of manipulate and control.
For example, a favorite tactic of Catholic priests to maintain control on their "flock" is to punish those who act against their teachings by publicly humiliating them through the refusal to grant holy communion.
But it is incorrect to frame his objection in terms of free speech as if that is the only outlet the various religious groups have to express objection to those who disagree with them. It significantly down plays the power religious organisations have over their members through the manipulation of their reputation and standing in the wider society.
PDN wrote: » Read the first page of the thread, particularly the disturbing views expressed by dlofnep. In post 7 he argues that religious leaders should not have the right to express their opinions against gay marriage.
robindch wrote: » When Herr Ratzinger opines that gay marriage "threaten(s) [...] the future of humanity itself", and Ratzinger's representative in New York, Timothy Dolan, threatens "a national conflict between church and state", believers will not think of these ravings as the dyspeptic opinions of a couple of unpleasant old men, but (as they've been instructed to) as the immutable, divine will of the creator of the universe.
And as Philologos regularly reminds people, if the religious beliefs are true, then it must be one's sworn moral duty, the object of one's every possible moment, to spread these beliefs, to enact them wherever and whenever possible, as best one can. In essence, to treat these opinions, not as opinions, but as the most urgent form of diktats, just as you were looking for.
However, what you're actually doing here in pretending that these are not diktats -- and, btw, I thoroughly approve of your viewpoint -- is promoting the atheist's perspective that the opinions of religious leaders, while frequently presented as divine diktat, in fact are nothing more than the political or theological opinions of some seriously over-inflated and over-indulged windbags.
First, research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families headed by two biological parents. Parental divorce is also linked to a range of poorer academic and behavioral outcomes among children. There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents
Research findings linking family structure and parents’ marital status with children’s well-being are very consistent. The majority of children who are not raised by both biological parents manage to grow up without serious problems, especially after period of adjustment for children whose parents divorce
Bannasidhe wrote: » I am certainly not saying shut up and I do recognise the attraction of the 'ideal' and why some people would prefer that that concept is given a special status. I just don't happen to agree with that point of view.
Bannasidhe wrote: » The issue as I see it is that the ideal is rarely, if ever, the real. Nor is is always as ideal in reality as it is in our minds. To return to the sunny every day in Summer analogy. Were that to actually occur we would have hose pipe bans, farmers and gardeners complaining about lack of rain and withered crops, people wandering around with parts of their bodies exposed to public view that I think most of us would really rather not see, free sun burn for everyone in the country, our beaches and parks left looking like landfill sites, flies everywhere etc etc etc. Not so ideal eh?
Bannasidhe wrote: » And sometimes the nuclear family model is not ideal either. It can be a place of abuse, fear, sorrow and uncertainly. The introduction of divorce has opened the door to freedom for many trapped in awful marriages but that does not mean that every nuclear family is a bed of roses for all within - or maybe it is - looks good from a distance but full of thorns, aphids and blackspot when you look closely.
Bannasidhe wrote: » As a society we have to deal with what is already reality, not hanker after the impossible - and the idea that every single child in Ireland will have a mammy and a daddy and they will all live in some super state of nuclear family bliss is never going to be true and no amount of legislation will make it so. We may as well bring in a law saying it will only rain for 2 hours, during the night in June/July/Aug and the average daily temp. will be 23 degrees Celsius with a light refreshing breeze.
Bannasidhe wrote: » But the reality, that no legislation is ever going to change, is that not every child has two parents. Do we say that one parent + child(ren) is not a family?
Bannasidhe wrote: » All campaigners for equality - in particular those couples with children - are asking for is to be allowed to embrace a slight variation on what you hold up as the ideal. They believe children should have two parents and want to legally ensure that is the case.
Bannasidhe wrote: » But - is that enough of a reason to deny the children growing up in families headed by same-sex couples the security of having two legally recognised parents?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Could it not be argued that a stance such as yours - were it to become the official position of the Irish government - would punish children because their parent's 'lifestyle is not 'ideal'?
PDN wrote: » Really? Then why can't he point to a single instance where, in respect to gay marriage, religious leaders have done anything other than express their views?
We now return to the overarching question of this paper: Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that provides a context for children that is equivalent to the traditional marriage-based family? Even after an extensive reading of the same-sex parenting literature, the author cannot offer a high confidence, data-based “yes” or “no” response to this question. To restate, not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 23–45; see Table 1) compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them (e.g., Table 2). Some opponents of same-sex parenting have made “egregious overstatements”97 disparaging gay and lesbian parents. Conversely, some same-sex parenting researchers seem to have contended for an “exceptionally clear”98 verdict of “no difference” between same-sex and heterosexual parents since 1992. However, a closer examination leads to the conclusion that strong, generalized assertions, including those made by the APA Brief, were not empirically warranted.99 As noted by Shiller (2007) in American Psychologist, “the line between science and advocacy appears blurred” (p. 712).
PDN wrote: » When Barack Obama or George Clooney expresses an opinion, they aremanipulating their reputation and standing in the wider community. Sauce+Goose+Gander=Secularism
Bannasidhe wrote: » Phil - So what do you suggest the State does about those children currently being raised in families headed by same-sex couples? Leave them in the legal limbo they currently inhabit as their situation does not conform to the 'ideal'? Deny them two legal parents even though in their everyday lives they have two parents?
PDN wrote: » dlofnep clearly stated that he does not believe in that equality of free speech.
dlofnep wrote: » At no point did I say that you can't express yourself. Not once. What I object to is a religious institution using it's position of power within society, from obstructing basic civil rights. It's over-stepping it's boundaries and role as an institution of faith. Now they can define religion if they so wish, and state that they oppose same-sex marriage - but it is absolutely irrelevant in any practical sense. Just as the views of those who opposed same-race drinking fountains in the south of the US were irrelevant in any practical sense. Civil rights trumps bronze-age superstitions, every single time. You don't get to dictate the rights of others.
PDN wrote: » Sophistry. You are dancing round intolerance to try to make it more palatable.
PDN wrote: » If there are instances where people have been threatened with excommunication in order to hinder legislation on gay marriage, then I will gladly join you in decrying such behaviour. How many such instances can you point to?
philologos wrote: » Just speaking an opinion is to a certain extent influencing society.
philologos wrote: » The idea that a child for the most part should be raised with a mother and a father isn't a "bronze-age superstition" either .
philologos wrote: » This should be debated and discussed in a mature democracy. Telling people to shut up over the subject is just childish.
philologos wrote: » The race analogy has been shown to be false many times on this thread already.
philologos wrote: » What is so wrong about saying that that should be encouraged then if this is the case?
philologos wrote: » It's simply wrong to say that there isn't research that shows that children are better off with biological parents. Not to mention other studies that show that fathers and mothers benefit their children in different ways.
philologos wrote: » I'm not saying that anyone should deny anything. Simply regard marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and regard civil partnership for formalising a relationship with another of the same gender. They are different things as far as I see it. There are questions as to what level of involvement the other biological parent should have in the child's life in the case of same-sex relationships though.
dlofnep wrote: » I was referring to the idea that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and that most certainly is a bronze-age superstition. I've already highlighted that same-sex marriage is a civil affair, not a religious one. If you want to object to same-sex marriage being held in your church, go for it. But to try and dictate whether or not two consenting adults can cement their love in marriage in a civil matter is absurd.
dlofnep wrote: » I've never told anyone to 'shut up', and I'd appreciate it if you didn't descend into strawman arguments.
dlofnep wrote: » Racial segregation, which affected basic civil rights such as the Jim Crow laws were driven in part on religious grounds, by white Christians in the south of the US. It's absolutely appropriate to compare it to the ongoing efforts by Christians who seek to stop same-sex marriage in Ireland (And around the world). So no, I reject your assertion that my analogy has no merit.
Bannasidhe wrote: » So would you like to see two distinct means or couple to enter into a committed, legally binding, life partnership - #1 named 'Marriage' which is applicable to opposite gender couples and #2 named 'Civil Partnership' which is applicable to same-sex couples?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Would you have an objection to both pieces of legislation being exactly the same otherwise?
Bannasidhe wrote: » As for the 'other' biological parent, so to speak, would you believe that there are questions also to be asked in the case of a heterosexual non-biological parent adopting his/her partner's biological children regarding the level of involvement in the children's lives by their 'other' biological parent?
philologos wrote: » Race != Sexual orientation. One is biologically determined, there is no evidence to suggest the other is.
Zombrex wrote: » What? It has been argued to death on this forum that even if homosexuality is biologically determined and naturally forming that has no bearing on if it is either moral or harmful. Mixed race marriage is not tolerated because you can't control your race. It is tolerated because there is freaking nothing wrong with it.
philologos wrote: » Of course. The best interests of children need to be considered when it comes to adoption, but otherwise admittedly I can't say I would have much issue with them being similar. The ideal is still marriage as far as I see it. Yes, the same rules apply. The other biological parent has a fundamental right to be involved in their child's life unless there is serious reason to suggest that they shouldn't such as domestic violence or serious abuse. Zombrex: There are a number of studies which show that fathers and mothers benefit their children in differing ways. That needs to be considered also.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I could live with that. I must admit I, personally, think it's a bit silly and legally cumbersome to have two distinct pieces of legislation that are the same (not similar - the same) in every regard but have different titles depending on which sexual orientation they are applicable to. But as long as they were the same I would have no objection. As I mentioned, I have no investment in the word marriage.
Bannasidhe wrote: » The best interests of the child should always be paramount when it comes to adoption. Sometimes the 'best' would be a straight couple and sometimes it would be a Gay couple. Decisions should always be made on a case by case basis.
Bannasidhe wrote: » As for the 'other' biological parent. As the current legislation re: married couples stands a child cannot be adopted by the spouse of the biological parent if the 'other' biological parent has already been legally identified as their parent. I would see no reason to change that as the child(ren) have two legally recognised parents already. In the situation where the child legally has only one parent I see no reason why the gender of the non-biological parent should be a factor in denying the adoption.
Bannasidhe wrote: » All of this biological/non-biological/'other' biological is beginning to addle me.
philologos wrote: » Neilos: Except for the huge gaping difference that race doesn't change family structure, and gender does? - It's dishonesty in the highest order to blur the lines like that.
philologos wrote: » A civil partnership isn't the same thing as a marriage, precisely because a civil partnership can never provide a child with a mother and a father as far as I can tell. In the vast majority of cases a child is better off with a mother and a father. But I do agree with you, there could be cases where this differs. The other biological parent should have a role in a child's life. It would be absolutely immoral to suggest that wouldn't be the case as far as I can tell. That is irrespective of whether or not it is a heterosexual relationship. There are questions over the legal right of sperm donors also. The reality is when we are talking about situations where insemination must come through artificial means, the rights of biological fathers or mothers comes into consideration. Addle you as it may, this is going to come under discussion. Neilos: Except for the huge gaping difference that race doesn't change family structure, and gender does? - It's dishonesty in the highest order to blur the lines like that.
Neilos wrote: » Two parents and a child? Where's the change in family structure? I have not been dishonest in any way, take a look at the court case i linked to, the arguments made there are the same as the arguments being made here. To deny that is dishonesty in the highest order.
